Talk:Solomon's Temple

This page is subject to the extended confirmed restriction related to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

New image

The source is this but I see no information about it. Why is it more accurate? When was it created and who created it? @Tom Bahar: do you know? Doug Weller talk 13:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Like I said in the leadimage discussion above, I don't think "accurate" is much of an issue. James Tissot maybe? The source page states "© Studio Har Moria". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:37, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure who created this photo, but as someone familiar with biblical archeology, and having seen ancient Israelite motives with my own eyes (I live in Jerusalem, few kilometers from the City of David and the Israel Museum) - I can see that the suggested depiction is actually based on Israelite motives from the Iron Age (for example, Proto Aeolic capitals, which are known for being common in Israelite and Phoenician architecture), something that cannot be said on the 17th century depiction. Gråbergs Gråa Sång - Sorry, but I strongly disagree with you. Accuracy should be a consideration when describing an ancient, historic building. Moreover, this article states that Solomon's Temple was based on Phoenician design, and the leadimage should match that. Tom Bahar (talk) 20:23, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This is not an article about a historical building, at least not according to the article. All depictions are artist musings more or less based on biblical text. Since the September discussion (such as it was) found a consensus for the Vatable pic, and comments were made against File:Храм I (I asked about it at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#Commons_image_File:Храм_I.jpg), I don't think the leadimage should be changed without new discussion first agreeing it's a good idea. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Factual accuracy in the lead

The first para says "It was built during Solomon's reign over the United Kingdom of Israel and was fully constructed by c. 957 BCE.[citation needed]" - but although citations can be found, the 4th paragraph clearly says "Although most scholars today agree that a temple existed on the Temple Mount by the time of Nebuchadnezzar II's siege of Jerusalem, its construction date and the identity of its builder are debated.[8]...Since the 1980s, skeptical approaches to the Biblical text and the archaeological record led some scholars to doubt whether any temple at all was constructed in Jerusalem in the 10th century BCE.[9] Others suggested that Solomon's original temple was modest, and was later rebuilt in a larger scale during the late-monarchical period.[10] No direct evidence for the existence of Solomon's Temple has been found,[11][12] nonetheless, no real archaeological excavations have ever been conducted on the Temple Mount due to the extreme political sensitivity of the site." The alleged date of construction is also in the infobox. Doug Weller talk 14:14, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I hope I'm not taking liberties, but it seems the entire slant of this post is about factual accuracy, which is a very specific concern. I've tweaked the title and maintenance tag accordingly. As with many biblically linked pages, there seems to have been a cumulative blurring of biblical story and historical fact in the editing of this page. It will need careful teasing apart. Iskandar323 (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The lead was a bit of an abomination - too long objectively, five paragraphs and bouncing all over the place in terms of contents. I've attempted a bit of a trim. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I very much agree, thanks.@Iskandar323 Doug Weller talk 16:05, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Minor detail, but IMO a WP:LEAD like this should almost never include names of specific scholars (Fabio Porzia and Corinne Bonnet), but their ideas is fine if "lead-worthy". Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we also have a bit of the old 'in-the-lead-but-not-in-the-body-problem' there too - so the question of leadworthiness is a pertinent one. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Two birds with one stone - I just lobbed both rather granular statements on a single piece of archaeological evidence back to where they belong. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:38, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:51, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

The red image, again

Image under discussion

By the same artist

I've removed it 3 times from the article since yesterday, so I'm getting close to WP:EW. It's an "own work", uploaded to Commons in 2010. In short, it's fan art. It looks impressive, a bit like the Holyland Model of Jerusalem, and has colors, but it's only the artistic vision/WP:OR of the anonymous uploader. So my view is that it shouldn't be used here.

Opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:35, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The article has way too many imaginary images and this is far down the list of significance. So I don't think we should have it. Zero^talk 10:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Present-day location associations in the infobox

The lines in the infobox implying that the location of Solomon's temple is A) known, B) where the Dome of the Rock stands, and C) that its "public access" is the same as the Temple Mount are counter-factual. Solomon's temple remains a thing of myth whose precise location is fundamentally unknown. Setting aside the completely unevidenced claims that the Dome of the Rock is where it stood (this is not even known for the Second Temple), there is even debate over whether Mount Moriah was actually the same thing as the Temple Mount. The "public access" line is meanwhile obviously intended for extant religious buildings (like the actual Temple Mount space), and not something that should just be copied across to articles on things presumed to have existed there. The map and coordinates are likewise tenuous. Iskandar323 (talk) 12:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Moons of Io: Given this edit, in which you restored this seemingly counter-factual information, this thread is primarily for you. What am I missing here? Iskandar323 (talk) 12:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The location of the temple is widely sourced: Here is one from a couple of days ago [1] Moons of Io (talk) 13:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"It is known to Jews as the Temple Mount, site of two Biblical temples" reads like "in Jewish faith", doesn't it? Also, while BBC and other news-orgs are often good sources, a WP-article like this should focus on WP:RS books and scholarly articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Almost any of the 200 sources used for the Western Wall would cover that stonework as being built by Herod, rebuilding on the site of Solomon's original temple. Moons of Io (talk) 15:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Herod was involved in building the wall, yes, that is a historical fact, but that bears absolutely no relation to the unevidenced assertions above. Iskandar323 (talk) 15:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Virtually all scholars accept that a Yawhist temple existed on the Temple Mount by the time of the Babylonian destruction; the debate is mostly surrounding its construction date and the identity of the builder. Moreover, the majority of scholars agree that the Second Temple was built at exactly the same location as the first one, so Herod's walls do support the mainstream academic view that the First Temple was located on the Temple Mount. Let's steer away from conspiracy theories please. The Temple's precise location on the Temple Mount and identification with the (platform of the) Dome of the Rock are less certain, but it is the prevalent view in literature. One recent debate, for example, was whether the Holy of Holies was located above what is today known as the Foundation Stone, or the temple's altar, but both views concur that both Temples were situated in this precise region of the Mount. Tombah (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Such debate has been going on for centuries. It is characterised by reliance on tradition and argumentation rather than actual evidence. Both scholars and crackpots engage in it. Zero^talk 10:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My main problem here is certain features of the religious building infobox template that are clearly aimed at contemporary structures: I'm not sure if the template is even meant to be used for historic structures, let alone a non-extant 3,000-year-old one that is indeed the stuff of hypothesis and debate, hence why details such as access are inappropriate, along with, one might argue, a map pin maintaining the pretence that an exact location is known. Iskandar323 (talk) 17:39, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was a temple. I don't think it was Solomon's. I don't think it was big. I don't think it was monotheistic.

If the real Temple "of Solomon" ever gets excavated, I guess Orthodox Jews and Conservative Evangelicals would not be delighted and would have vehement reactions. tgeorgescu (talk) 03:26, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

Map and geographical coordinates in infobox

Given that the location of the original temple is unknown, as even the likes of Finkelstein admit, is there an particular reason why there should be a mildly POV-ish map and coordinates giving it a precise location? (Especially when this feature is clearly actually designed to locate modern buildings (hence the modern map), not ancient ones.) As it stands, it appears to be simple providing unsubstantiated information than comes more from the realm of religious and political fantasy than it does the realm of evidence, and is largely serving simply to bloat the infobox. If readers want to know where the temple mount is, as the presumed location of Solomon's temple, they can click on its link. Iskandar323 (talk) 05:18, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Unnecessary tag

{{Update inline|date=April 2024|reason=The source is from like a 100 years ago.}}

Hi CycoMa1. I took the freedom to remove the tag. I find it irrelevant, once it's been made clear that it's all exclusively based on the Bible. They could understand biblical prose perfectly well 120 years ago, functional illiteracy among apparently educated people is rather our problem today than it was back then. What can be challenged is the Bible text, but that A. has nothing to do with the JE being pre-WWI, and B. for the period in question the biblical compilation was proven to be rather factual, the authors likely had royal and Temple archives to work from. Arminden (talk) 09:13, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

"Model of the First Temple"

"Model of the First Temple, included in a Bible manual for teachers (1922)"

Accordung to the book where the picture is taken from (and by the look of it) I think it's a model of the Herodian Temple and not of Solomon's. 2003:E4:AF1D:6778:BD89:A2F5:809B:F794 (talk) 02:21, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Corrected, thanks. GordonGlottal (talk) 03:04, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

Lede & Infobox

Hi @Sinclairian: you reverted my edit based on WP:DUE. Could you please clarify what you meant? The whole point of the edit was to make it more NPOV. نعم البدل (talk) 11:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

NPOV does not override WP:REL. There is no reason for adding the Arabic name for a structure existing more than a thousand years before the inception of Arabic and having no relevance to the Arabic language or Arabic culture. Sinclairian (talk) 01:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sinclairian: The Solomon's Temple isn't merely restricted to Judeo-Christian beliefs. It's also relevant to Muslims, hence why there's a section on the article dedicated to the Islamic POV. The Arabic name in the lede would and should reflect this. نعم البدل (talk) 14:13, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Solomon’s Temple is liminally relevant to the tradition of Islam, whereas it is a centerpiece of Jewish and Christian traditions and history. It’s not even directly mentioned in the Quran. There is no equivalency here. Sinclairian (talk) 14:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@Sinclairian: That would assume that Islamic beliefs are solely based on the Qur'an which they aren't, and just because there's more emphasis on it in Judeo-Christian beliefs, doesn't mean it has no emphasis in Islam. It does. It has been indirectly mentioned in Quran (while directly mentioned by Caliphs and scholars in Islam). Solomon is also considered a Prophet in Islam. Along with Hekel Sulayman, it's also known as Arabic: البيت المقدس – al-bayt al-muqaddis / the Sacred House. Being the basis of the al-Aqsa Mosque, it definitely has emphasis in Islam, which is why it's fair to include the Arabic names, along with the Hebrew names. نعم البدل (talk) 18:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Look, the Temple was a Jewish holy site which remains of primary significance to Judaism. There is a reason we don’t include Hebrew, Latin, or Greek terms in the ledes for pages like Al-Aqsa or Al-Quds – if the primary significance lends to one group, that group tends to use what would be considered COMMONNAME. Sinclairian (talk) 18:18, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Respectfully, the reason why al-Aqsa doesn't have any Hebrew terminology, is because it has no relevance to Judaism – it is a mosque, just as the Second Temple has no Arabic terminology, because it has no relevance to Islam (to my knowledge anyway), but the Solomon's Temple has basis in both Judaism and Islam. نعم البدل (talk) 18:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Generally we restrict foreign names to original/native ones. Even the Hebrew is questionable because there's no specific term for Solomon's Temple until the Herodian period, as far as I know, but the idea is appropriate. Sometimes we also include local or politically important names, even if they aren't historical (so Arabic at Western Wall, Temple Mount) but this site no longer exists. GordonGlottal (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal: It's why I removed any foreign names from the infobox and confined it to the lede of the article. I didn't think it was appropriate to include names in other languages in the infobox, but since there are multiple variants/names in different languages, it should have been included in the lede. نعم البدل (talk) 18:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

But do you realize that, by extension, the Arabic terminology is a foreign name as well? Sinclairian (talk) 18:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I understand that – I don't have any issue with the Hebrew names and would like to keep them in the lede. I just think that for this article the infobox shouldn't have names in other languages apart from English. My point was that the lede should contain both the Hebrew and Arabic names. I do also understand GordonGlottal's point about removing foreign names in the lede, but I'm inclined to disagree with it, respectfully. نعم البدل (talk) 18:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no reason whatsoever to include the Arabic name, just as there is no reason to include the Latin or Greek name (despite both having controlled Jerusalem, and despite it being important in Christianity). If this temple existed (for which there is no direct proof), it was a temple of a small Hebrew kingdom/chiefdom. That makes the Hebrew name relevant, and other languages irrelevant. This is standard WP naming policy. Jeppiz (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Serial erasures

Iskandar323 has removed long-standing material from the article under arguments which I consider spurious. He has then proceeded to serially revert
(1) Sinclairian,
(2) Boksi and
(3) myself.
Observe this user was recently topic banned from certain topics. XavierItzm (talk) 18:04, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because of WP:OR. No one restoring this content is even trying to support it with secondary sources. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:03, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Fully agree with @XavierItzm. Claiming any reference to ancient sources on an article the subject of which is only recorded by ancient writings is WP:OR is extremely dubious. The repeated removal attempts escalate this behavior to barely-disguised vandalism. Weliviewf (talk) 05:43, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It's not "extremely dubious", it's one of the better understood ideas whatsoever by researchers: ancient sources are primary, the context and intended meaning of which not being transparent to untrained readers from later eras, and thus must generally be interpreted anew by experts, which make secondary statements we can then cite at face value. Applying our own interpretations is center-cut OR. Remsense ‥ 论 06:00, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Iskandar is correct. This text is just an account of the bible according to wikipedia editors, with no use at all of sources that meet WP:RS. The 19th century commentary is not reliable by our standards. This is a violation of the policy of interpreting primary sources. I agree that the bible story has a place here, but it has to be presented via reliable secondary sources. Once the skeleton is supported by secondary sources, a limited amount of biblical quotation is ok. Zero^talk 06:06, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Ancient sources is a bit rich - it's the bible. It's not a history text and it is a primary source. There are plenty of secondary sources for this subject. Go to Wikipedia Library and find some. Simonm223 (talk) 20:45, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Subject is "biblical narrative". It may be fiction, it may be history, it may be biased, it may be opaque to untrained readers from later eras. It says what it says. Have you seen the first section on most if not all films on this here en.wikipedia? Plot. Most people need interpretation to understand a Fellini or an Éric Rohmer work —works which were commercial in their time only 5 or 6 decades ago. Should we delete those sections on the basis of "untrained readers from later eras"? XavierItzm (talk) 21:14, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Were there a film with a corpus of critical and interpretive academic secondary sources equivalent to those of the bible I would be just as opposed to the over-use of primary sources there. This isn't a movie. It's material from a religious text. Simonm223 (talk) 21:38, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Also it would have been funnier if you went with Pier Paolo Passolini rather than Felini. Simonm223 (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

First of all, "other articles are potentially bad" is not an argument for why you should be allowed to do bad things to this article. "It says what it says" is a useless tautology—no, it does not. We don't need more people eager to lower our standards for biblical hermeneutics to that of WatchMojo because anything more would be a pretentious waste of time. You have volunteered what it says, as the final link in a 25-century-long game of telephone which likely passed through at least two languages that you don't speak. The confidence in your own ability to authoritatively transmit what the text says—having successfully grasped the necessary context of how and why it was said—is unearned and amounts to hubris in the extreme. Remsense ‥ 论 21:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

You mean tens of thousands of articles on this Wikipedia with the section "plot" and "summary" and zero refs for the plot section are bad? (Cf. "Summary" Don Quijote). That's an ambitious statement.
The cited WP:RS say what they say; for example this one, serially deleted by Iskandar:. That's The Pulpit Commentary, in 23 volumes, edited by Donald Spence Jones and Joseph S. Exell. If you don't think that's a WP:RS, you are welcome to replace it. This is the en.wikipedia, not the paleo.he.wikipedia. Nobody here needs speak Paleo-Hebrew; monolinolinguals are welcome to consult the cited references for verification of the cited source. XavierItzm (talk) 22:53, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, I'm saying it makes no damn sense to point to the mistakes other editors made on other articles as a justification for the mistakes you want to make. Good grief. Remsense ‥ 论 22:57, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

These sections are not akin to a plot section for a specific literary work. Bible book pages may have plot summary sections. This page is not a bible book page, but a page about a biblical subject, information on which is being extracted from multiple books. The process of determining which information is relevant and valuable is entirely interpretive, and so when we sit down to the business of writing up an encyclopedic entry on the topic, we need to reference secondary sources to determine what merits inclusion per due weight. Iskandar323 (talk) 04:22, 26 January 2025 (UTC)